Re: [tied] Catching up again...

I agree the "wine" word *can* be IE, though any etymology of what is obviously a culturally important Wanderwort must be treated with suspicion. The reconstruction *woi-no- *might* be a learned kind of folk etymology. G&I have their own agenda for *woi-no- (it plays a role in their homeland argument).

As for "eight", the exact reconstruction of the ending is difficult. Practically everyone agrees it's identical with the masculine dual ending (Brugmannian *-o:/*-o:u). It's by no means certain that it involved a laryngeal, and if it did, the laryngeal may have been *H1 ([h], [?] or whatever) added to a stem-final *-o, rather than *H3 ([xW]). The dual of root nouns (*-e < *-H1(e)?) lends some support to that interpretation. The [w] glide added to *-o: in prevocalic sandhi may be just an automatic onset-filler after a rounded vowel.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:07 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Catching up again...

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:09:36 GMT, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote: >Isn't it interesting to note how wine starts at around 5500 BCE and we >coincidentally have widespread terms for "wine" in IE and Kartvelian that >seem to be Semitic in origin. We know that the IE term *weino- is not >analysable within IE, How so? An analysis *woi-no- from *wei- "to turn, to wind" is perfectly defendable (in fact, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do so, IIRC). >it's not analysable in Kartvelian as far as I know. >Hmm, I wonder what the solution could be... Is it analysable in Semitic? Speaking of wine, you may be interested in the Basque word for "grape(s)", <mahats>, reconstructible to pre-Basque *<banas'>, and looking very much like a loan from A.Eg. <w-n-s^> "grape".

...

>In the case of "eight", Miguel writes *ok'tH3-. For clarity's sake,
>it should be more properly written *ok^txW-. *H3 is known to have a
>labializing effect on neighbouring vowels so let's just call a dead horse a
>dead horse, 'kay? This way, the relationship between the re-written *ok^txW-
>and PK *os^txw- becomes far more readily observable. Perhaps the Satem
>change was already in effect when this happened?

Well, there is a subtle difference between PIE *xw == PK *xw and PIE
*o == PK w.

...